FANDOM


ARCHIVED COMMUNITY DISCUSSION FROM 2012-2015:



This Wiki is Terribly Biased

I've gone through several articles on this wiki, and I've found it to be excessively biased towards Angel and the Buffy/Angel relationship. Only two sentences were given to describe the romantic relationship between Angel and Cordelia, while Angel's cameo appearances on End of Days/Chosen merited a long paragraph. A long parenthetical section on the Angel page explains that the only reason Spike won in the battle for the Cup of Torment is because Angel wasn't trying hard (Angel explains to Gunn that the reason Spike won the because "he wanted it more," not because Angel wasn't trying.) The entire section recounding seasons 5-7, describing the romantic relationship between Buffy and Spike on the Spike page is named "Obsession with Buffy," even though that only was true for half of season 5. Buffy and Angel had other relationships besides their own, but it feels like the authors of this wiki forgot all about that.

First of all, please sign your posts. Like all wikis, this site is only as good as the people who contribute to it. The relative size of the community is much smaller than it would have been if this site had existed when the show was on. Rather than criticize, why don't you help out? The site relies on fans like you to edit and improve the site. DinoSlider 03:26, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
Can I just say that it is very frustrating when users like Eilowyn go in and edit the Wiki, only to have it changed back to the same bias text it was the day before by some users? What is even the point of putting all that time and energy into contributing to the community when it will just get changed back the next day? Eilowyn has encouraged several new people to come and try to make this wiki more neutral and honestly, being one of those people, I want nothing to do with helping anymore. I had already done a lot of ground work to help make the Angel page more neutral, time I didn't have to spend. I don't want to spend hours, as she does, editing entries, only to have some fan (who is upset and wants it to skew Bangel) come in here and passive aggressively change all her hard work. It is ridiculous. (And I am not sure how to sign it but I am user xlivvielockex)


New thread

So Buffy upset the balance by activating all the potentials. That's what caused all the demons to enter into the Earth dimesion, right? 1 Slayer = 1000 demons, 1500 slayers =1,500,000 demons (possibly). The Universe was trying to balance everything out, right?SuperFreak1880 09:06, February 10, 2012 (UTC)Steve

This is not the place to discuss that. Here we discuss THE WIKI ITSELF. And your comments must be placed BELOW THE HEADERS. Please read before just writing.--Gonzalo84 15:38, February 10, 2012 (UTC)


Should TPB and HC comic collections have their own page?

Recently some pages dedicated to DVD collections of several episodes have been deleted. I was wondering if the same thing should happen with comic collections. The original story content is related through the single issue pages as well as the pages for the series the issues belong to. The pages for TPB/HC collections could be argued to contain only merchandising information in the same way that DVD collections do. What's more, there is a confusing overlap in collected editions. Season Eight is collected per 5 issues in TPBs, and per 10 issues in HCs; then there's mini-series which are included in their own TPB and later also in an omnibus. I totally believe that series should have their own page, but collections are sometimes rather arbitrary. --Paul van Gent (talk) 10:32, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I like that the comic collections have their own pages. It's still in the Season but still a story arc, y'know? Maybe both can have their own pages? The series and the story arcs? Romance Girl (talk) 02:16, September 15, 2012 (UTC)Romance Girl
Any time there is a release, it should be cataloged. This allows someone coming to the wiki to see that comic issue X is collected in TPB A, HC B, and Omnibus C. With an informed view, they can choose to purchase the collection that makes the most sense to them. -- sulfur (talk) 14:27, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
Good points both, I am convinced ;) ―Paul van Gent (talk 15:18, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
I know you're already convinced, and I fully agree with all aforementioned arguments, but I'd like to add another point to why there definitely have to be pages for preferably every collection there is: in overseas (like Germany where I'm from) it's not that easy to get access to individual issues, especially if you don't own a credit card. Collections however, which have an ISBN, can easily be ordered from whatever bookstore (on- or offline) you prefer. So if you're interested in having certain issues, it's a tremendous help to know which collections they can be found in, and which collections contain precisely which stories (if the respective pages are consistent that is, which I'm working on). Amazon or darkhorse.com unfortunatelly are not always as reliable as you'd like them to be in that respect. And that's just beside the point that I prefer TPBs over individual issues anyway ;). WikiaFrogo (talk) 13:32, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Cover art or actual cover

I was wondering if comic book pages should feature the clean unaltered uncropped cover-art or the actual cover with text, logos, etc? Currently it's a mix of both. For older issues it might not be possible to find the original cover-art, so I would lean to using the actual covers. --Paul van Gent (talk) 11:14, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

The actual covers are more largely related to the issue, right? I don't think the unaltered versions matter as much or are very important. So I agree with you :). The actual covers should be used only. Plus, they're just more interesting XD. Romance Girl (talk) 02:12, September 15, 2012 (UTC)Romance Girl
I agree, the preferred version for issues, TPBs and HC (basically all merchandise) should always be the actual cover. The original cover art, if available, can still be added to the pages additionally, if someone likes them, so that shouldn't be a problem. WikiaFrogo (talk) 13:17, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Buffyverse actors in other shows

As it stands right now, some character pages have these huge blocks of text toward the bottom of their pages saying that they, along with dozens of other characters (each one also named) are played by actors that also appeared in other shows (Six Feet Under, Supernatural, Criminal Minds, etc). I would like to remove these from the pages and instead put this info on separate list pages a la the DCAU Wikia, and then simply link to those link pages. Agree/disagree?--OzzMan (talk) 13:54, August 16, 2013 (UTC)


Where are we now putting information from Non-Canon novels and comics?

I've been a fan of buffy for a very long time, and a "lurker" on this wiki. Recently I wanted to start contributing to the wiki by filling in some of the holes in information I've found. However, I realized, after reading both discussions on cannon and the current articles that I didn't know where to put some of the information (and didn't want to add it if it would just be erased.) I agree that non-canon information shouldn't be included in the main section of character pages, but it seems like there should be some place it is collected, especially given the large number of buffy novels and comics as well as the interconnected nature and continuity between many of the novels, short stories and comics. Now that it is no longer part of the bulk part of the articles, shouldn't there be a "non-canon" section added to pages (primeval wiki does this)? Or maybe separate pages for non-canon appearances, much like there are separate pages for alternate universes? I know that this wiki is written to be "in-universe" but I can't help but think it would be counter to the purpose of a wiki to allow the desire to remain entirely in-universe hamper the ability of wiki to become a comprehensive collection of information on the buffyverse. In short, where should I now put, for example, information on Council of Watchers found in Buffy novels? Isn't it there some way to, for example, note on Wesley's page that there is a non-canon story with information on Geoffrey Wyndam-Pryce? --- Louzeyre


Non-canon things go on their own pages, to help avoid confusing people. The "noncanon" template is placed at the top of non-canon articles, and appearances by canon characters in non-canon works may be noted in their appearances section, so long as it is made evident that the work is non-canon. As per your example, Geoffrey Wyndam-Pryce has his own page, which links to the relevant pages, such as Wesley and the comic he is from, but the Wesley page does not link to this page, as it is non-canon. Again, this is done to help keep clear what is and isn't canon. Non-canon Buffy works certainly have a place on this wiki, but we try to ensure that it's obvious that they have no bearing on the TV show or the ongoing comic series.--OzzMan (talk) 20:05, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. However, I was still hoping for some further clarification. Specifically I was wondering if there was place (or if there could be made a place) for facts collected from non-canon sources. For example:


According to Blood and Fog by Nancy Holder, as of the 1880’s the Watcher’s Council would have meetings of a privy council. These privy council meeting would be composed of 13 members, and include the current Prime Minister and the current slayer’s Watcher.
According to Pretty Maids All in a Row by Christopher Golden, as of the 1940’s the Watcher’s Council’s headquarters were situated in a building on Great Russell Street . The Council’s directors meetings would be held the fourth floor of the building around a table with 14 chairs: one for the current slayer, one for the current slayer’s watcher and the rest for the council directors.
Both of these are from non-canon sources, and aren’t something that would be included the summary of the work they are taken from, but are facts that seem to build on each other. While they are not canon, it does seem like there should be somewhere where these kinds of facts, from licensed material, could be collected, just as the council’s page, for example, is a spot where the canon information about the council is collected.
Or for a slightly less obscure example --- what languages does Spike speak? There is a list on his canon  page but he is seen speaking and reading others, from Turkish to ancient Sumerian in non-canon comics, couldn't there be a place where those can be listed as well? Thank you again. --- Louzeyre

2012 Canon Debate

The above is a very interesting conversation, but I don't think a formal policy was ever formulated, was it? I think it would be very beneficial to the wiki if there was a clear policy on this topic. If I might summarise the debate so far. Currently four levels of canon can be distinguished:

  • Confirmed canon: TV shows, Fray, After the Fall, Season Nine, etc.
  • Ambiguous canon: Spike: Shadow Puppets, Angel: Aftermath, Long Night's Journey, etc.
  • Non-contradictory non-canon: Go Ask Malice, Viva Las Buffy!, etc.
  • Contradictory non-canon: Queen of the Slayers, Blackout, Spike and Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row, etc.

Currently, pages can include information from any of these sources, which may be confusing to readers, who - like Joss himself - want to know about the an absolutely official story-so-far. To amend this, several ideas have been put forth, but before we discuss that, it might be important to also distinguish between several kinds of pages.

  • Single source pages: like the pages for episodes, comic book, and novels, as well as for characters, events, locations, or demons that appear in only one source.
  • Multiple source pages: like the pages for recurring characters, demons, locations, etc.

Demarcation of canon in the first type of page is relatively easy: a template could be used that puts a box at the top of the page that makes note of the canonical status. The really difficult part is how to treat those pages which use information from multiple sources with different levels of canonicity. Taking the page for Kakistos as an example. This page features a biography for the character based on sources of all four levels of canonicity. Possible solutions that have previously been suggested are:

  • Split description: The description (biography) section is split into two sections each dedicated to different levels of canonicity. Within this solution, there are three further versions :
    • Confirmed canon vs the rest
    • Canon vs non-canon
    • Contradictory non-canon vs the rest
  • Demarcation inline: Information from all kinds of sources is included in the same description, but any paragraph describing information from any source other than confirmed canon, is preceded by a warning noting the level of canonicity of the paragraph that follows.

The same processes here could be used for other multiple source pages. I'm very curious to see what you think would work best. Before you reply though, please consider that this a hot topic where personal opinions and preferences tend to get in the way. Don't let that happen to you ;) --Paul van Gent 13:47, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to break with the in-universe perspective to distinguish canon vs. non-canon within the main body of an article. A template at the top, proper citations in the text, and optional comments in the Behind the Scenes section should be sufficient. Canon or not, all of the material covered in this wiki should be from licensed sources. The fact that some of it has been arbitrarily "blessed" or "certified" seems like more of a footnote. It isn't like canon equals non-contradictory. DinoSlider 01:22, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with DinoSlider. In-universe perspective is nice and clean, footnotes cover the bulk of the issue, and Behind the Scenes can clear up any of the complex stuff. Din's Fire 997 02:46, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
Why is Spike After the Fall part of the Dubious canon articles?Darkfox666 06:12, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
As described in the canon article, Spike: After the Fall is often, but not always counted as canon (some fans only consider AAtF #1-17 as canon). As you can read, there is no 100% conclusive proof, which is why it is on the list of disputed canon works. Personally, I find the proof of its canon status to be enough, but some might disagree. --Paul van Gent 08:10, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer to think Asylum and Shadow Puppets, as well as all of IDW's post-After the Fall works (with the exception of Fallen Angel: Reborn) as canon. It just seems to fit in so seamlessly, especially since Whedon adapted Betta George into the mainstream. Smijes08, 16:08, May 20, 2012 (UTC)



2015:


FAQ: Fancy Signatures

The information on the FAQ under Fancy Signatures is incorrect. I, however, don't know enough (yet) to fix it. Could someone else take the lead on it?

Thanks! tzi (talk) 01:43, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.